snapshot_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies non-destructive read, and the listed return fields (guid, name, path) add value, but it doesn't explicitly state non-mutating behavior, error conditions, or what happens for invalid targets.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The Args line earns its place by documenting format. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the input format and the return contents adequately. A bit more on failure/edge behavior or format of guid would round it out, but it's complete for the operation's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate—and it does: 'target: snapshot:/ path or {guid}' clarifies the accepted URI scheme and format, adding real meaning beyond the bare string type. Slightly more detail (e.g., examples or matching semantics) would push it to 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get a snapshot's guid, name and path" uses a specific verb+resource and names the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from siblings like snapshot_list (which lists snapshots) and snapshot_rename/snapshot_delete (which mutate). Intended scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a read-only query use case and the target docstring clarifies input format, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., how it differs from snapshot_list or the lookup utilities). Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.